France steps up security at embassies as magazine publishes Prophet Mo cartoons

[dead0man]

link

<snip>

The cover of Charlie Hebdo shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title "Intouchables 2", referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.

Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine shows the prophet re-enacting a scene from a Brigitte Bardot movie.

<snip>

"The freedom of the press, is that a provocation?" he said. "I'm not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn't go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe."

Dalil Boubakeur, the senior cleric at Paris's biggest mosque, appealed for France's four million Muslims to remain calm.

"It is with astonishment, sadness and concern that I have learned that this publication is risking increasing the current outrage across the Muslim world," he said.

"I would appeal to them not to pour oil on the fire."

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his "disapproval of all excesses".

But he emphasised France's tradition of free speech. "We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature," he said on RTL radio.

"If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law – and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected – they can go to court," Ayrault said.

[London Man]

Seriously, these people have had five years to get the hint - don't publish cartoons showing Mohammed! It is not worth the damage it is causing to many innocent people.

[Marcus Aurelius]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

[dead0man]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

Indeed.

[London Man]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

They should never have stepped over that line in the first place.

[Marcus Aurelius]

They should never have stepped over that line in the first place.

But who drew that line ? Democracy, aka the people, draw the lines ! The line today in France says : it's ok to draw Muhammad, it's ok to make fun of him, it's ok to criticize whoever you want, it's just not okay to provoke hatred against a community.

It's been since 1905 religions didn't draw the lines here. We're not letting them back.

[Zioneer]

Seriously, these people have had five years to get the hint - don't publish cartoons showing Mohammed! It is not worth the damage it is causing to many innocent people.

Yeah, I mean, they have the right to publish it, it's more of the ethics (or lack thereof) of knowingly and deliberating inflaming religious anger.

[London Man]

Seriously, these people have had five years to get the hint - don't publish cartoons showing Mohammed! It is not worth the damage it is causing to many innocent people.

Yeah, I mean, they have the right to publish it, it's more of the ethics (or lack thereof) of knowingly and deliberating inflaming religious anger.

Precisely. People should have learnt that this. If you want to make of Islam, do it without drawing Mohammed - it just causes problems, because it's that offensive.

[I left.]

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

[London Man]

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

Those people using their freedom of the press should know that what they publish has consequences. If those consequences led to the deaths of innocent people, then they have some responsibility on the moral level at least.

[Californian Tony]

Charlie Hebdo are massive FFs, as always.

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

Those people using their freedom of the press should know that what they publish has consequences. If those consequences led to the deaths of innocent people, then they have some responsibility on the moral level at least.

If we start bending to this kind of logic, then free press becomes an empty phrase. Blasphemy is a right, a right which ought to be proclaimed, but also enforced in reality. If admit that you can't publish certain things because you know that some nutjob somewhere in the world might be offended by them, then  you're basically surrendering this right. And this is unacceptable.

And as a side note, I am truly disturbed by Hollande and the government's lack of support (actually, an almost veiled condemnation) of the magazine. I guess their attitude is based on diplomatic concerns, but it's still sad. Freedom of the press isn't negotiable.

[RogueBeaver]

I'm with Antonio 100% here.

[Sibboleth]

Having a right to do something is not the same thing as saying that it is always right to do something.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Look: It's a dumb and unnecessary thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden. You're wanting to take civil and criminal action against people that are excercizing their rights in Western democracies.
And that's not something I'd ever be willing to compromise on, least of all to please an angry mob in the streets in Libya that has a lot of "growing up" to do, so to speak.

The people that are murdered by these angry mobs are a good reason to refrain from publishing things you expect would have that effect, but the responsibility ultimately lies in the people doing the killing, not the people peacefully using their freedom of the press.

Those people using their freedom of the press should know that what they publish has consequences. If those consequences led to the deaths of innocent people, then they have some responsibility on the moral level at least.

     The responsibility is that of those who would kill over triviality. These people have to realize that it is the 21st century and their attempts to quash dissent must fail.

[Sibboleth]

These people have to realize that it is the 21st century

Really now

[I left.]

Having a right to do something is not the same thing as saying that it is always right to do something.

True of course.

[Californian Tony]

Having a right to do something is not the same thing as saying that it is always right to do something.

The reason why it is right to publish blasphemous caricatures right now, is because it reaffirms a principle which, otherwise, would be severely eroded. Blasphemy is always to be accepted, regardless of how some people in the world could possibly react to it.

The fact that it comes from a markedly progressive magazine which uses to denounce anti-muslim bigotry in Europe as forcefully as it denounces Islamic fundamentalism, makes it even more of a principled standing.

[London Man]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

[Californian Tony]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Why do people feel the need to pull this sh**t?

[Mister Twister]

They got the hint. The day you step back, fundamentalists win, and you can never take that step forward again. If anything, we should publish funny drawings of Muhammad in every newspaper everyday. Then people would start to understand how their prophet isn't any more sacred than any other and we have the right to make fun of him as we want.

I agree with this completely.

[London Man]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

[I left.]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

You really don't get it...

[London Man]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

You really don't get it...

Yes, I do. Charlie Hedbo decided that just because it could this, it should. In the process, it is inflaming many of the people we need to defeat al-Qaeda. I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but it must be used responsibly.

[Mr. Morden]

Gotta agree with the Antonio/Franzl axis on this one.  Just keep making Mohammed cartoons until the protestors get tired of protesting.  Next week, they'll be onto protesting over something else anyway.

In any case, looks like France is actually wimping out by banning protests over the cartoon(!):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/21/us-protests-france-ban-idUSBRE88K0G820120921